Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows
bobbocanfly writes "Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page of Windows Defender, using IE4Linux and Wine. (Here is an OGG video of the process.) Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology, this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."
You kidding me? That's more interesting than anything else. I'd love to see *why* it does that, and *how*.
For one thing, WGA is supposed to check Product key, PC manufacturer, Windows version, PID/SID, BIOS information, BIOS MD5 Checksum, Language setting and version, and Hard drive serial number, among other things.
Since your winver and product key don't technically exist (I believe the former comes up as Win 98), I don't see how WGA gets a false positive in this case (which means it's also going to be an easy bug to track down).
But, theoretically, since xubuntu doesn't need a 'valid' key, it may throw random numbers out (which would be very unlikely to trip the 'pirated' check, but would mean WGA doesn't check if your key is valid.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Could be useful for people like my dad - he uses Linux for the internet stuff (and gimp) but boots in Windows (no internet connection for that) to use Excel etc. He doesn't want to expent the effort to keep Windows secure, but he might still want an update for a driver or something like that.
Please, for the love of god and all things holy, mod parent up!
I used to work at Microsoft. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons, so feel free to doubt what I'm about to tell you.
Parent is spot on. The purpose of WGA isn't to block all attempts to pirate Microsoft software. As we've seen with countless articles here on /., dedicated people will bypass WGA. People at Microsoft know this - come on!
WGA exists because unscrupulous PC manufacturers / PC builders will sell PCs with improperly licensed copies of Windows. i.e. they'll pay for one copy and install it on every computer they sell. Saves 'em what, something like $60 per computer? I forget the exact number of computers sold this way, but it's surprisingly high.
So the thought is: you (or your mom, or gramma) buy a PC from one of these guys, you find out that they sold you a computer with a bogus copy of Windows, and you no longer do business with them. And you tell your friends, and they don't do business with them.
As I said, feel free to think I'm lying to you. There are plenty of things to dig Microsoft about, but I'm afraid there's no delicious irony in an Ubuntu user validating their copy as Windows.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/08/ 2343248 2005 reference to the same thing.
MS is looking for copies of XP that are nongenuine. Think of it as a negative return check, not a positive return check. The fact that it passed means that MS is fairly certain you're not running a pirated copy of XP (which is correct), NOT that MS is fairly certain you're running a valid version of XP.
I've always used Windiz Update as an alternative to Windows Update.
>"2) Standard PC hardware with fancy plastic that is much more overpriced than the same hardware minus fancy plastic" You're going by old info. You can configure a Dell and an Apple with the same specs and the prices are quite close.
:-)
He said minus the fancy plastic. Try pricing it on pricewatch and building it yourself. Yes, most people wouldn't do that. No, that vast majority of linux users would build it themselves, hence the vast majority of people reading your reply would build it themselves, being that the vast majority of people visiting slashdot have used linux in their lives.
The thing is you *can* buy a Mac Mini for $500, but how does it compare to even a name brand PC from Dell at that price? It might have the performance, but any additional item you want in there (save a stick of RAM) will have to be external. And upgrading it is going to be impossible in the same way you can upgrade a PC (Don't like the motherboard? Fine, throw in a new one. Don't like the hard drive? Buy a 3.5" drive anywhere and *ADD* (not just upgrade) 500 GB. One of the 44% of Americans with Dial Up? Throw in a $9.99 special. Etc, etc.
You have to go apples for apples (pun intended). Compare a Mac that has the same upgradeability and additional hardware installation ability as a PC. Hard to do and come out with as sweet a price, eh? Powermacs are what, about $1,000? Yikes!
>"3) A OS that is more expensive over it's life that even Winblows - and Apple CURRENTLY charges serious coin for major OS updates" $129 is serious coin? And remember, this is for the MAJOR updates. Also, they're lax on the DRM, since you usually have to have the hardware to run the OS.
Yes, considering windows is about $50 OEM, and is updated for features for about 5 years and for security for about 10 years. How many updates to OS X have there been in that time that have required purchasing the new OS? Plenty.
>"4) A secure coding and patch release methodology that is *years* behind MS" Patch and release when it's found, not once a month?
Yes, there's a lot of bugs in Microsoft software. But that's not his point. His point is that Microsoft can (and does) push updates onto their machines automatically without (much, sometimes none) user interaction.
>"5) Apple regularly lies about the performance capabilities of its' machines" For example? I'd love to see some examples here.
That's easy (an oldie, but such a goldie!) enough.
>"6) Apple uses Solaris and Windows (Apple china ran it until 03) because of their superior stability compared to OS X." Proof please.
I'll give you this one, I can't find anything solid one way or the other, but even so, the last time I could find references to Apple using solaris were from ages ago... to the point they might not have even had OS X in full deployment.